G.R. No. L-1555 - JANUARY 1948 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-1555January 31, 1948 Gregorio Nicomedes vs. Ramon A. Ycasiano, et al. G.R. No. L-1423January 31, 1948 Maxima Garcia Toco vs. Go Fay G.R. No. L-1460January 30, 1948 Allison J. Gibbs, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-1363January 30, 1948 Jose Casia Garces vs. Gerardo Bello, et al. G.R. No. L-561January 30, 1948 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Remedios Paras G.R. No. L-1557January 29, 1948 Manila Hotel Company vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-399January 29, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Prieto G.R. No. L-1792January 28, 1948 Flaviano Romero vs. Sotero Rodas, et al. G.R. No. L-1457January 28, 1948 Co Tiac vs. Felipe Natividad G.R. No. L-1800January 27, 1948 Cipriano P. Primicias vs. Valeriano E. Fugoso G.R. No. L-539January 27, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Meliton Buyco G.R. No. L-1540January 26, 1948 Simplicio Mag. Guinto, et al. vs. Director of Prisons G.R. No. L-1529January 26, 1948 Jose Basilio vs. Felipe Natividad, et al. G.R. No. L-1809January 23, 1948 Narciso C. Alvarez y Cortes vs. Director of Prisons G.R. No. L-1487January 23, 1948 Amalia Torres vs. Buenaventura Ocampo, et al. G.R. No. L-985January 23, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Agoncilio G.R. No. L-593January 19, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Pablo Alejo G.R. No. L-824January 14, 1948 Hilario Camino Moncado vs. El Tribunal del Pueblo, et al. G.R. No. L-1232January 12, 1948 Metropolitan Transportation Service (METRAN), vs. Jose Ma. Paredes, Vicente De La Cruz and Arsenio C. Roldan, Judges of Court of Industrial Relations, and The National Labor Union The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Gregorio Nicomedes vs. Ramon A. Ycasiano, et al. Maxima Garcia Toco vs. Go Fay Allison J. Gibbs, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Manila, et al. Jose Casia Garces vs. Gerardo Bello, et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Remedios Paras Manila Hotel Company vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Prieto Flaviano Romero vs. Sotero Rodas, et al. Co Tiac vs. Felipe Natividad Cipriano P. Primicias vs. Valeriano E. Fugoso People of the Philippines vs. Meliton Buyco Simplicio Mag. Guinto, et al. vs. Director of Prisons Jose Basilio vs. Felipe Natividad, et al. Narciso C. Alvarez y Cortes vs. Director of Prisons Amalia Torres vs. Buenaventura Ocampo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Agoncilio People of the Philippines vs. Pablo Alejo Hilario Camino Moncado vs. El Tribunal del Pueblo, et al. Metropolitan Transportation Service (METRAN), vs. Jose Ma. Paredes, Vicente De La Cruz and Arsenio C. Roldan, Judges of Court of Industrial Relations, and The National Labor Union The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-1555             January 31, 1948

GREGORIO NICOMEDES,petitioner-appellant,
vs.
RAMON A. YCASIANO ET AL.,respondent-appellees.

Moises C. Nicomedes for petitioner-appellant.
Feliciano Jover Ledesma for respondent-appellee De Leon.

BENGZON,J.:

In the Court of First Instance of Manila, the petitioner Gregorio Nicomedes asked that the municipal court of said city be declared without jurisdiction to entertain the complaint therein filed against him of respondent Crispina de Leon. He asserted that the suit was not a detainer case, and on the issue the Honorable Dionisio de Leon, Judge, denied his prayer. Hence this appeal.

In said complaint, as amended, — which is the gist of this litigation — Crispina de Leon made the following allegations, after describing the parties to the controversy:

3. xxx xxx xxx

As it is unquestioned that detainer cases in Manila filed in accordance with Rule 72 of the Rules of Court properly pertain to the municipal court, this appeal would be unmeritorious if the above allegations make out a cae for detainer under the Rules. We believe they do. The assertions therein set forth include the essential elements of an unlawful detainer, to wit: (a) ownership of the house by plaintiff; (b) contract of lease on a monthly basis at P300 per month since February, 1945; (c) notice on December 17, 1946, of owner's decision to terminate the lease, unless the tenant agreed to pay P400 a month beginning January, 1947; and (d) failure or refusal of tenant to pay P400 and his retention of the premises. The prayer is what landlords usually demand: ouster from premises, rents and damages.

Appellant , however, insists that the matter is no ejectment suit, because the complaint attempts to collect P400, which was not the rent of P300 previously agreed upon, according to the very complaint on file. He invites attention to our ruling inBelmonte vs. Marin, 42 Official Gazette, No. 10, p. 2416 that, "The lessor may, under article 1569 of the Civil Code, judicially dispossess the lessee for 'default in the payment of the price agreed upon." But where such default is based on the fact that the rent sought to be collected is not that agreed upon, an action for ejectment will not lie."

However, the appellant will observe that there is no pronouncement in the
above-mentioned precedent that the detainer litigation did not belong in the municipal court of Manilawhence it originated. The above pronouncement referred to the substance of the controversy or the merits of the litigation — not to the form in which it is to be originally debated, which, under the statute, is the justice of the peace or municipal court.

The alleged failure of the tenant to paint or repair the premises may be considered as one additional reason why plaintiff refused to allow tenant to continue renting the building at P300 only. Her main cause of action was the termination of the lease and the tenant's refusal to vacate. Anyway we held inBaguioro vs. Barrios, L-277, 43 Off. Gaz., 2031, that:

For reasons herein-above explained, the appeal may not be sustained. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. With costs against the appellant.

Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, and Padilla, JJ.,concur.